Today, On 29th October, During the All India Judges Association Case hearing, The Supreme Court clarified that it has no intention of curbing the discretion of High Courts in recommending names for appointments but questioned why each High Court is following a different policy in the process.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Constitution Bench continued hearing the long-pending case All India Judges Association Case which examines whether a quota should be introduced in District Judge appointments for those who joined the judicial service as Civil Judges (Junior Division).
The five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymala Bagchi heard detailed submissions from Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who appeared on behalf of the Allahabad High Court.
The apex Court observed that there should be some degree of nationwide uniformity in the criteria used to determine the seniority of entry-level judicial officers.
The Court noted that such consistency is essential to address the slow and uneven career progression faced by judges across different states in India.
At the outset, Dwivedi requested the Bench to consider appointing two amici curiae in the case—one to represent the interests of the High Courts.
He said,
“There should be two amicus in the case, one representing the High Courts as well.”
Justice Vikram Nath observed,
“That’s the issue. The High Court registry controls everything. If promotees are involved, they tend to hold back data and information.”
Agreeing with the concern, Dwivedi remarked,
“Exactly. Unless the data is presented accurately, there’s a real danger of creating an imbalance.”
Responding to the concern, Chief Justice Gavai said,
“You’re appearing for the High Court. You can place the data before us.”
However, Dwivedi clarified that his representation was limited,
“I’m only representing one High Court, the Allahabad High Court. Most other High Courts aren’t represented here. The data collected by the current amicus is scanty, incomplete, and based on outdated legal positions.”
To this, the Chief Justice noted,
“Notice has been served on all the HCs and State governments.”
Dwivedi then cautioned the Bench against hasty intervention, stating,
“I stand on behalf of Allahabad HC to dissuade your lordships to take any actions based on constitutional principles. There may be situation where your lordships intervention is required but they have the data to take the best decision about the situation prevailing in the state. It’s not just about there should be a quota, it’s also what it should be.”
He further argued that no uniform pattern exists across the country, and imposing a single rule could create imbalance.
He Added,
“There’s no uniform pattern across the country the circumstances differ from one High Court to another. If such variation exists, imposing a uniform quota would disturb the existing balance. It’s better to let each High Court handle the matter individually, since this issue isn’t common to all of them. It’s the constitutional duty of the High Court force them to do it. We have to strengthen the HC, not weaken them.”
The Chief Justice clarified the Court’s stance, saying,
“We have no intention of curbing the High Courts’ discretion in recommending names. However, why should each High Court follow a different policy? Even indirectly, we do not aim to interfere with or limit their authority.”
Dwivedi responded by highlighting several unpredictable factors that affect the issue, including the age gap between candidates and the reasons behind it.
He explained,
“There are various imponderable factors which are in play in determining if there should be quota. First is why is there an age gap? Why is that Civil Judge in junior division is reaching late? Before your lordships’ judgement there was no bar in appearing in the exam. Lawyers are appearing in examination at a late stage. The average age in Allahabad HC is 28. Please get this data from all the HC.”
Appearing for the Punjab and Haryana High Court, counsel strongly opposed the idea of introducing any quota for promotee judges, asserting that the existing system already ensures equality once officers are appointed as Additional District Judges (ADJs).
The counsel submitted,
“The evaluation of promotees is based on a subjective assessment of merit. Once ADJs are appointed, their seniority is fixed according to the roster. Therefore, the claim that promotees are lagging behind doesn’t apply in my High Court.”
She further argued that after appointment, all judges should be treated equally, regardless of their mode of entry into the service.
She said,
“Once they are appointed they lose their birthmark and are equals and my humble submission is that equals should be treated as equals and hence a quota would be discriminatory,”
Highlighting the data from her jurisdiction, she informed the Bench that promotees already have adequate representation.
She concluded,
“In my state, in both cases the appointment for District Judge as well as to the Hon’ble High Court—the number of promotees are more than the direct recruitment. As per Punjab and Haryana, the roster has worked and the apprehensions have no basis,”
Another counsel appearing for direct recruitees from Kerala and Bihar also opposed altering the existing framework.
He said,
“My humble submission is that there is no need to disturb the system in place. The question is what would contribute to the health of the judicial system.”
Supporting the argument that the source of recruitment should not create any distinction once officers join the same cadre, he added,
“My humble submission is that when they come from different sources and merged into one then the source cannot be the basis of distinction.”
The Bench then raised a query regarding the factors forming the basis of such distinctions.
Referring to the arguments presented, it noted,
“What is the basis of this? One argument is the benching of direct recruitees on top and another is age difference.”
Responding to this, one counsel remarked,
“We don’t want people who are not meritorious to go up the ladder.”
Another counsel sought permission to address the Bench, saying,
“I am in the same application but my turn is at the end.”
At this point, CJI BR Gavai clarified,
“In one application only one counsel.”
Later, a counsel appearing for direct recruits in Delhi supported the submissions made earlier, saying,
“I am adopting what Mr. Dwivedi said. The roster system is a very good system but has not been given a chance to operate properly.”
The hearing concluded for the day, with the matter scheduled to continue before the Constitution Bench.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989),
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
